Tigers claw Magpies to shreds, reinforcing case for to merge

[system]

Wouldn't a major sponsorship (what the article says they want to do) remove some of the financial burden from WT partners and allow that money to be funnelled back into Junior Rep and so forth?

By being a major sponsor they would gain no power over the side.

It seems win/win from where i sit.

If Wests Campbeltown or Wests Ashfield choose to pony up the dough ten take the highest bidder. it is all about the money benefit for the side in the end as far as I am concerned in that circumstance.

 

[wtfl1981]

Wouldn't a major sponsorship (what the article says they want to do) remove some of the financial burden from WT partners and allow that money to be funnelled back into Junior Rep and so forth?

By being a major sponsor they would gain no power over the side.

It seems win/win from where i sit.

If Wests Campbeltown or Wests Ashfield choose to pony up the dough ten take the highest bidder. it is all about the money benefit for the side in the end as far as I am concerned in that circumstance.

Its whats in place at the moment.

Ryde-Eastwood Leagues fund BRET
Ashfield Leagues funds Magpies NSW cup
Campbelltown Leagues funds Wests Juniors
Balmain JL clubs get nothing…

A WT nsw cup team would rely mostly on ashfield $$ and there would be no $ contribution from Balmain leagues/FC

Balmain Junior league clubs still get no help.. I know this because i know the secretary of one club.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[Guest]

One thing is for certain. If Wests go it alone next year and are to be competitive, the following needs to happen:

They spend some coin to buy some decent talent; or
The powers that be have a momentum shift and have WT aligned players play for them.

Options 2 seems unlikely, so we'll wait and see what happens with option 1.

 

[Benjirific]

Wouldn't a major sponsorship (what the article says they want to do) remove some of the financial burden from WT partners and allow that money to be funnelled back into Junior Rep and so forth?

By being a major sponsor they would gain no power over the side.

It seems win/win from where i sit.

If Wests Campbeltown or Wests Ashfield choose to pony up the dough ten take the highest bidder. it is all about the money benefit for the side in the end as far as I am concerned in that circumstance.

That is spot on. A Ryde-Eastwood helped JV side would mean no need for WT expenditure on second-tier outside of players, but Wests see that as a Balmain power grab which is just ridiculous. For those who say Wests are the ones behind a JV State Cup and Balmain aren't….the Balmain members of the WT board have NEVER voted against a JV State Cup team, the Wests Group members have (on multiple occasions).

 

[system]

I have no idea what either board is doing this time around so really can't comment on that

 

[slick]

One thing is for certain. If Wests go it alone next year and are to be competitive, the following needs to happen:

They spend some coin to buy some decent talent; or
The powers that be have a momentum shift and have WT aligned players play for them.

Options 2 seems unlikely, so we'll wait and see what happens with option 1.

Option 1 is in the bag…

Option 2 is very possible...

Stay tuned

 

[slick]

Wouldn't a major sponsorship (what the article says they want to do) remove some of the financial burden from WT partners and allow that money to be funnelled back into Junior Rep and so forth?

By being a major sponsor they would gain no power over the side.

It seems win/win from where i sit.

If Wests Campbeltown or Wests Ashfield choose to pony up the dough ten take the highest bidder. it is all about the money benefit for the side in the end as far as I am concerned in that circumstance.

That is spot on. A Ryde-Eastwood helped JV side would mean no need for WT expenditure on second-tier outside of players, but Wests see that as a Balmain power grab which is just ridiculous. For those who say Wests are the ones behind a JV State Cup and Balmain aren't….the Balmain members of the WT board have NEVER voted against a JV State Cup team, the Wests Group members have (on multiple occasions).

Balmain are in bed with Ryde-Eastwood, and a JV NSW Cup side dominated by their funds, means power to Balmain. Any other thought, is just so out of touch with reality, it ain't funny. There's more to this story, and the truth will be revealed very shortly…for the record, I'd like to see a JV team, with equal funds put in by both sides, I don't care where either get it, as long as it's legal. From there, they can move forward, jointly, with equal representation on running it. But, if one is demanding more from the other, than it just gets silly...

 

[Sabre]

As far as the Magpies signing better players goes I don't think it will happen if Wests Tigers continue to distance themselves from the team.
Good players wouldn't want to sign on for a team that isn't a pathway to NRL.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[parent]

Firstly $$$ talk in any signings and wests could be a feeder for all clubs.2cnd the problem just might be the Hawks - Ryde Eastwood will no longer have naming rights over a joint venture team. It surely must be named West Tigers thus their stopping of all funding to Balmain and with their unfortunate financials a rock and a hard place might be appropiate

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

Wouldn't a major sponsorship (what the article says they want to do) remove some of the financial burden from WT partners and allow that money to be funnelled back into Junior Rep and so forth?

By being a major sponsor they would gain no power over the side.

It seems win/win from where i sit.

If Wests Campbeltown or Wests Ashfield choose to pony up the dough ten take the highest bidder. it is all about the money benefit for the side in the end as far as I am concerned in that circumstance.

The whole point of sponsorship is that you get a positive return on the amount you invest. Wouldn't we want to see these positive returns flow through to the WT partners?

I would argue Ryde-Eastwood Leagues Club, technically a competitor to Wests Ashfield, Wests Campbelltown and Balmain Leagues Clubs, is riding on the coat tails of the Wests Tigers brand for minimal cost. Where was their investment in this joint venture from 2000?

 

[system]

Gary I honestly just find that fanciful. I know there has been this conspiracy theory bandied about in some circles that Ryde Eastwood is trying to make itself a de-facto JV partner for some time, pretty much since this mess started in regard to the 2012 season.

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

I am not arguing they wish to be a de-facto partner, but rather there is a conflict between a sponsor and the WT partners.

 

[system]

If they were closer in locality I would be more inclined to buy into that theory Gary.

 

[Yossarian]

Isn't Ryde Eastwood a member of the Balmain DJRL? I don't see why their desire to tip money into our set-up is a bad thing. I'm sure Penrith wouldn't turn down investment from St Marys or Parramatta from Wentworthville.

 

[Benjirific]

Wouldn't a major sponsorship (what the article says they want to do) remove some of the financial burden from WT partners and allow that money to be funnelled back into Junior Rep and so forth?

By being a major sponsor they would gain no power over the side.

It seems win/win from where i sit.

If Wests Campbeltown or Wests Ashfield choose to pony up the dough ten take the highest bidder. it is all about the money benefit for the side in the end as far as I am concerned in that circumstance.

The whole point of sponsorship is that you get a positive return on the amount you invest. Wouldn't we want to see these positive returns flow through to the WT partners?

I would argue Ryde-Eastwood Leagues Club, technically a competitor to Wests Ashfield, Wests Campbelltown and Balmain Leagues Clubs, is riding on the coat tails of the Wests Tigers brand for minimal cost. Where was their investment in this joint venture from 2000?

A competitor? That's like saying a Chinese place in Ryde is a competitor of a Chinese place in Campbelltown, it's just absurd.

And as a 'sponsor', they've put in half a million dollars to the joint-venture per year since the beginning of their involvement. Is that enough of a contribution? Why should the club knock back someone willing to invest $500,000 a year? It's just a silly decision to push them away because of a perceived (may I say naively) benefit to only one side of the joint venture. This is for the betterment of WT, which should be the aim for everyone involved in the joint venture.

 

[Tiger_Watto]

A competitor? That's like saying a Chinese place in Ryde is a competitor of a Chinese place in Campbelltown, it's just absurd.

And as a 'sponsor', they've put in half a million dollars to the joint-venture per year since the beginning of their involvement. Is that enough of a contribution? Why should the club knock back someone willing to invest $500,000 a year? It's just a silly decision to push them away because of a perceived (may I say naively) benefit to only one side of the joint venture. This is for the betterment of WT, which should be the aim for everyone involved in the joint venture.

Benji, is this $500k additional to their sponsorship of BRET?

 

[system]

In the end it is an emotive issue, a complex issue and something with no clear resolution pending.

As such I am out, not going to spend the off season on the same merry-go-round as last year.

Enjoy

 

[Benjirific]

A competitor? That's like saying a Chinese place in Ryde is a competitor of a Chinese place in Campbelltown, it's just absurd.

And as a 'sponsor', they've put in half a million dollars to the joint-venture per year since the beginning of their involvement. Is that enough of a contribution? Why should the club knock back someone willing to invest $500,000 a year? It's just a silly decision to push them away because of a perceived (may I say naively) benefit to only one side of the joint venture. This is for the betterment of WT, which should be the aim for everyone involved in the joint venture.

Benji, is this $500k additional to their sponsorship of BRET?

From what I can remember of the annual reports, that is their input into the Balmain Ryde Eastwood State Cup team. In my opinion, any investment into either side of the joint venture is an investment into the joint venture, assuming its working for the betterment of the joint venture, which this quite obviously is.

 

[Snodgrass]

And as a 'sponsor', they've put in half a million dollars to the joint-venture per year since the beginning of their involvement. Is that enough of a contribution? Why should the club knock back someone willing to invest $500,000 a year? It's just a silly decision to push them away because of a perceived (may I say naively) benefit to only one side of the joint venture. This is for the betterment of WT, which should be the aim for everyone involved in the joint venture.

Half a mill … Holy shmoley ... Maybe the combined reserve grade team should be called the Wests Hawks. :nerd:

 

[Snake]

There are certain people here that also think that ASIO are bugging there phone! Honestly a club wants to sponsor a footy team with big $$$ to put there name on a jersey big deal no conspiracy there guys just advertising if the major partner doesn't there loss.To be honest until mature adults step forward to make the right calls this will not end good.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_